Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Christmas Gift Guide

Andy Robinson says naming both Blair and Cusiter as captains isn't a cop-out

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 November 2009
ANDY ROBINSON'S decision to ditch common practice and name two players as joint captains of the Scotland rugby team will be viewed as either a masterstroke or a catastrophic act of folly depending on how the team go in their first three matches under the new coach – against Fiji, Australia and Argentina – later this month.
Until those games are out the way it is bound to be a major point of debate among armchair experts across the Scottish rugby community – but Robinson is clearly satisfied that he has made the right choice for the right reasons.

On a crisp autumnal afternoon in St Andrews yesterday, after a vigorous final session of this week's training camp, he tried to explain the logic behind his decision and insisted that he had not ducked the first really tough call of his tenure in charge of the national team. "I make a choice as to who is playing – there is going to be no cop-out there," said Robinson, who has already selected his starting XV, which will be announced on Monday. "I have to select one of them. They are going to be competing for places, and both know that there is a genuine competition there.

"If you lose, people look at all different reasons why you lose. I think this will allow us to perform at our very best and that's why I've decided to go this way. I've got to deal with the criticism as it comes.

"But what we have got is two guys who are developing as captains together. If we keep doing the same as we have always done we'll get what we have always got. Part of what we've got to look at is how we develop leadership in the squad. This is a different approach but why do we have to say that because it is different it is not going to work?

"Yes, questions will be asked of this, but I think we have two outstanding players and we need whichever one is on the pitch at any time to be at their best so that we get a full 80 minutes performance.

"Both players have been vying for the same spot for a number of years, and the coaches before me have chosen one and the other has suffered a wee bit because of that. Sharing the leadership in the camp as we prepare for games will help both players to focus on their own game. An important part of the captaincy is that whichever player starts must deliver. It's about how they work hand in hand with each other and develop that relationship."

Robinson revealed that he became convinced that the pair could share the responsibility of captaining the side after taking them out for dinner to discuss the possibility of this unorthodox move.

"I might as well have not been there. I paid for it but that was the only thing I contributed. It was fantastic to see the two of them chatting to each other and getting along socially," he said.

Very cosy – but should we not be concerned about the lack of edge between two young men who have spent the past five years vying against each other for international recognition? Top level rugby is a harsh environment where nice guys tend to come last – and last is where Scotland have tended to end up in recent years. Robinson avoided addressing this point directly, opting to talk instead about the ferocious intensity he had just witnessed out on the training paddock. "You don't see how these guys train against each other," he said. "We've had one punch thrown today, although not by either of those two.

"That's part of training – get on with it. It's a tough game and there is going to be antagonism, and I like that. I think it helps."

There is no doubt that if Robinson succeeds in building a team in his own image then a winning mentality is one thing that won't be lacking. Part of his plan in achieving this is to empower players to take responsibility for pulling the overall standard of the team upwards.

"Captaincy is important and the other leaders – the attack, defence, line-out and scrum captains – also have an important part to play, and the main thing we want from them is that when they are on the pitch they are performing at their very best," said Robinson. "I like to think this is a tool to enable them to play at their very best, because if we've got Mike Blair and Chris Cusiter playing their very best they will facilitate the side to perform."

Too many chiefs and not enough Indians? Well, that is another of those questions which cannot be properly answered until the deed is done.

"Let's try it, I believe in it, the players totally understand what this is about, so let's go out and do it," concluded Robinson.


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 November 2009 10:25 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

leemagee,

Perth 05/11/2009 02:56:08
This is a good omen I think; things appear to be running so smoothly in the Scottish camp that the only thing David Barnes can comment about is this drivel. Both players are proven performers, both give 100%, both have experience, and this serves to push them even more; a good move I think.
David, why don't you comment on the closing of the Borders team, or SRU debt, or some other benign story...
2

SWEATYSWEATYBOOMBOOM,

Your Granny's pits 05/11/2009 08:39:36
#1 - Im am bored to death with the constant articles on the lack of a Borders pro team and SRU debt. There must be 3 a week in this paper already.
3

Stoobing,

London 05/11/2009 11:11:13
# 2 spot on. The Borders pro team is history, and has been for some time, incredible some people - probably those people who didn't bother turning up to watch the team when it existed - still harp on about it!

As for the captains, Cusiter should be starting and Blair should be on the bench, so Cusiter should be captain with someone like Hines vice.
4

ODD SHAPED BALLS,

05/11/2009 15:02:32
#2,3
Borders rugby is a tradition you just can’t turn your back on. If you don’t like hearing about it, all the more reason to bring it up.
But of course, it was you who brought it up.
5

Stoobing,

London 05/11/2009 15:45:32
#4 - the 'rugby mad' people of the Borders turned their back on Borders rugby as evidenced by the abysmal attendance figures, hence the club became non-profitable and closed down. Woops.
6

ODD SHAPED BALLS,

05/11/2009 16:11:33
#5
Go on then, tell us all what the profits are from Edinburgh and Glasgow
7

PlanetEarth3000,

05/11/2009 17:10:44
Borders rugby still exists, just not in the Magners League. There is lots of rugby tradition in the borders, but club tradition. That meant no one followed the district side and if they had turned a club into a pro team, then only the fans from that area would show up. Same was true of the larger cities but luckily they had some neutrals who would turn up and now the fan base is growing, only a large population base can provide that platform.

Much better to place a 3rd district side in a populated area such as Aberdeen and develop the crowds. More needs spent on marketing in the big cities to get the attendances up but look like they are averaging 2.5 - 3.5k this year, up on last year.

Big mistake was the SRU creating these district sides with no history or support, but nothing can be done now, just have to hope they build on it.
8

The Borderer,

06/11/2009 07:49:07
Were the borders not virtually matching the Glasgow attendances even though they were a young club in comparison!
Glasgow will never grow to much as it is a football city.
9

J.A.,

06/11/2009 08:50:52
The perception that the attendances at Border games were greatly worse than Edinburgh and Glasgow is a myth. Unfortunately, many of those will little knowledge of the whole situation have been convinced of this and keep on dredging up this flawed statistic each and every time the debate is reopened.
The idea that the Borders only has a club tradition is pure fantasy, anyone with the even the slightest knowledge of Scottish rugby will know that.

Setting pro teams in the most populated areas is exactly what saved Glasgow and not their superior attendances. The principle that a pro team in Aberdeen would have a vast amount of support because of the bigger population base is not supported by the evidence which has been produced at both Edinburgh and Glasgow.
10

PlanetEarth3000,

06/11/2009 17:50:32
I shouldn't have led with the cities explanation but rather the final part: Big mistake was the SRU creating these district sides with no history or support, but nothing can be done now, just have to hope they build on it.

Unfortunately only large populated areas with easily accessible stadiums can provide that support for new teams and provide access to top of the range training & medical facilities, uptake of the teams was slow due to non-existent marketing.

After dominating the Premiership 1 for about 22 years there has not been a borders winner in the last 7 years, only 2 teams in the Premier 1 just now are Borders teams. The last 12 winners, have all been from Edinburgh and Strathclyde areas (includes Ayr) except for 2 wins by Hawick back at the turn of the century who are no longer in Prem 1. Not bad for a football city to have a team win the Rugby Premiership 1, 3 times in the last 6 years...

I think they should reintroduce a third team for Scotland in the ML but to have them promoted from the Prem 1. Then from there on, the bottom Scottish team in the Magners will be demoted to Prem 1 and the winner of Prem 1 promoted to the ML, helping to spread the wealth of the Magners League.
11

J.A.,

09/11/2009 08:34:26
planet earth.

What utter c**p!!!
12

PlanetEarth3000,

09/11/2009 13:23:04
J.A. - Not the most articulated rhetoric, would you care to expand on exactly what you believe to be incorrect?
13

J.A.,

09/11/2009 14:58:27
#9

Yes, a border club has not won prem 1 for a few years and there are only two teams from the borders in prem 1 at this moment. I don’t understand why this should lead you to assume that boders rugby is no longer a force and the SRU should be looking at Aberdeen. A team from that area has never one prem 1 and does not look like doing so in the foreseeable future.
Border players still dominate a number of our prem 1 teams along with imports from the southern hemisphere. The weakness of Scottish rugby is its lack of numbers and when you look at some of our prem 1, 2 and 3 clubs for signs of growth from within it is little wonder we are in the state we are. Hawick is still Scotland biggest club and it manages to develop players at a rate faster enough to feed their own club along with at least one other.

The thought of a third pro team coming from our club system is ....mmm... well let’s see how our two clubs get on in this year’s British Cup.

14

J.A.,

09/11/2009 14:59:29
#13 directed at #11 and not #9
15

J.A.,

09/11/2009 15:15:15
you know what I mean!!!
16

PlanetEarth3000,

09/11/2009 15:48:40
True the weakness is the lack of playing numbers and that needs to be addressed. However, I still think that basing the team in or near Aberdeen (or even Dundee) would be the better option if they ever do bring back a 3rd peo-team due to marketing and fan base potential. As you said, many players from the borders play in other areas and due to the flexibility of the workforce (players) the team should be based where returns are the most probable.

I am definitely looking forward to see how the teams get on in the British Cup and think that promotion and demotion are the only way to spread the wealth of the ML and will bring out a lot more competitiveness from the Scottish teams in the Prem 1 and ML vying for the extra cash from the ML.

PS - I know what you meant ;-)
17

J.A.,

09/11/2009 16:26:04
Planet Earth
Winning prem 1 is no longer a gauge of a clubs strength as it used to be, just about any club with a bag of money could do it if they wanted.

The SRU are not going to create another pro team in the near future, however, if they were, we should look at the facts before deciding where it should be sited.

Glasgow, Scotland biggest catchment by far has struggled to get a pro team up and running and even with its unbroken SRU support was on a par with the borders who had only been in existence for a couple of years. Edinburgh is now managing to get a respectable crowd but that has taken twelve years and millions of SRU funding. Aberdeen, a football town with a sparse rugby community is not the best option.

The South of Scotland has a traditional support which is better than any other area of the country and, if set up in the correct fashion, would be the best area by far to set up a third team.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.